> On 7 Sep 2021, at 22:08, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 10:07 PM Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 7, 2021, at 12:35, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> But we also need to make sure we don't end up being a link factory for
>>> companies or organisations who just want to get clicks, and do so by
>>> hosting an installer.
>>
>> It's a bit of a balancing act, because one of the ways a commercial organization can justify the (non-trivial) cost
ofpreparing packages or an installer is that it is a good marketing tool. At the minimum, we should require that the
installerbe downlaodable without any registration or information collection.
>
> Certainly, and I'm fine with that. I mean what we want to avoid is
> having 5 different links for each platform going to differen companies
> who're doing that as a way to drive traffic only.
I don’t think there is a huge risk in any company making the investment into
packaging and/or writing and maintaining an up-to-date installer purely for
traffic, that would be very expensive traffic. If they do make a high-quality
installer that people like and anyone can use for free without registration (I
would expect us to have such reqs in place for linking) only to get the
traffic, then that’s not necessarily bad for the community is it?
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/